Marquez Briggs v. Anthony Hedgpeth

MEMORANDUM

Marquez Briggs contends that the trial court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to confront the victim, John Doe, when it precluded him from cross-examining Doe about an interview where police mentioned the availability of immigration benefits for crime victims. “The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is clearly established law that “[c]on-frontation means more than being allowed to confront the witness physically ... a primary interest secured by [the right to confront adverse witnesses] is the right of cross-examination.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted). We need not determine whether the state court unreasonably applied Van Ars-dall. Even under de novo review, and even if we assume that Briggs’s constitutional rights were violated, any error was harmless because it did not have a substantial and injurious effect. See Brecht v.…